The Key

[taai gihk yahn]

Hehehe

Pavarotti had a great voice. He went too early, if you ask me.

He died too early, agreed, but he stopped singing just in time, and probably should have quit a few years earlier - his last few years were marred by frequent last minute and somewhat dubious cancellations and his later performances were less than stellar - when he shows signs of strain singing bread-and-butter rolls like Cavaradossi, it's time to hang it up...

just giving this thread a much needed breather...

[JPinAZ]

Robert,

I could really care less where you get anything, as long as you don't deny where you got it from, or cut down the sources after the fact. And please point out where I said you stole your hip motions from GM Hoffman on this thread, or any thread lately for that matter. Otherwise, you're just talking more sh!t.

I could really care less about the past events between you and Benny. This was something YOU brought up by posting that stupid link a few pages back in this now rediculous thread. I simply responded to it with solid verifiable proof from videos Ive seen and things you've written. Dam, you don't like my replying to it, then don't bring it up!
(BTW, these are things I can display if you like. NONE of what I said about you in this thread was here-say.)

The main thing that concerns me is when you call people liars, cheats, con men, twist facts, etc publicly as you have continued to do so many times in attempts to discredit others. I'm only responding to your actions. Stop the BS, and you won't hear a dam thing more from me again.

You talk like you've done stupid things in the past, how long ago are you talking?Yesterday? Last week? Last month? The only reason the past is relavent is because it's repeating itself over and over

Alan,

** Edit: my issue is with Robert, not you. I can, do and will speak with him directly.

------------------------

What's funny is, you both still have so many questions about HFY?!? Robert seems to already have his mind made up regarding it's history, forms, concepts, who stole what from whom, etc. You obviously both have no love for it, so what and why do you really want to know? Why can't you just let go of your dam attachments and move on like you say?

You want genuine conversation, why not join in on Robert's latest joke of a thread and ask your 'questions'? He's already continued the BS there, lets let this one die.

[bennyvt]

alan,
Can I ask you, did you learn the guilloten in biu jee or off your wrestling/grappling coach. I liked your video series especially the chinese boxing/ bare knuckle comparrison. My step dad was a boxer and got me into the history so I always thought the idea was interesting.
My main question, coming from a vt background but also do shoot/catch, where do you define the line between changing styles when needed or searching for the next style. This is easly defined if you just go VT stand up and grappling on the ground. But I know with the shoot/catch it has the standing grappling (pummeling, arm drags etc), throws, stand up, takedowns, wrestling and submissions. So the line is very fine between when you are in VT range and shoot range. I ask this as on your videos there were times when it seemed you were looking for underhooks etc when other Vt could have been used.
This is the main question when your students come up. I dont think that anyone on here thinks its bad that you guys are winning. Any testing is a good thing for VT in general. Its when it becomes about this is Vt when they do head high round kicks, the "biu jee" guilloten as it is now called etc. Winning is winning and as I have said I also do shoot so Im not trying to say doing grappling is bad, its just not VT. When I am using the grappling, I am grappling. Not using VT ideas, princibles, or mechanics, its grappling. Robert has stated that the guilloten is a VT technique that is out of the last section of biu jee (I call it "the getting out of the cake move"). I would contend that this is not VT but a grappling submission taught by someone else to you or your students.

[Alan Orr]

Robert,

I could really care less where you get anything, as long as you don't deny where you got it from, or cut down the sources after the fact. And please point out where I said you stole your hip motions from GM Hoffman on this thread, or any thread lately for that matter. Otherwise, you're just talking more sh!t.

I could really care less about the past events between you and Benny. This was something YOU brought up by posting that stupid link a few pages back in this now rediculous thread. I simply responded to it with solid verifiable proof from videos Ive seen and things you've written. Dam, you don't like my replying to it, then don't bring it up!
(BTW, these are things I can display if you like. NONE of what I said about you in this thread was here-say.)

The main thing that concerns me is when you call people liars, cheats, con men, twist facts, etc publicly as you have continued to do so many times in attempts to discredit others. I'm only responding to your actions. Stop the BS, and you won't hear a dam thing more from me again.

You talk like you've done stupid things in the past, how long ago are you talking?Yesterday? Last week? Last month? The only reason the past is relavent is because it's repeating itself over and over

Alan,

** Edit: my issue is with Robert, not you. I can, do and will speak with him directly.

------------------------

What's funny is, you both still have so many questions about HFY?!? Robert seems to already have his mind made up regarding it's history, forms, concepts, who stole what from whom, etc. You obviously both have no love for it, so what and why do you really want to know? Why can't you just let go of your dam attachments and move on like you say?

You want genuine conversation, why not join in on Robert's latest joke of a thread and ask your 'questions'? He's already continued the BS there, lets let this one die.

You can talk directly to my teacher. Never said you could not. I can also answer what ever I want.

[Alan Orr]

alan,
Can I ask you, did you learn the guilloten in biu jee or off your wrestling/grappling coach. I liked your video series especially the chinese boxing/ bare knuckle comparrison. My step dad was a boxer and got me into the history so I always thought the idea was interesting.
My main question, coming from a vt background but also do shoot/catch, where do you define the line between changing styles when needed or searching for the next style. This is easly defined if you just go VT stand up and grappling on the ground. But I know with the shoot/catch it has the standing grappling (pummeling, arm drags etc), throws, stand up, takedowns, wrestling and submissions. So the line is very fine between when you are in VT range and shoot range. I ask this as on your videos there were times when it seemed you were looking for underhooks etc when other Vt could have been used.
This is the main question when your students come up. I dont think that anyone on here thinks its bad that you guys are winning. Any testing is a good thing for VT in general. Its when it becomes about this is Vt when they do head high round kicks, the "biu jee" guilloten as it is now called etc. Winning is winning and as I have said I also do shoot so Im not trying to say doing grappling is bad, its just not VT. When I am using the grappling, I am grappling. Not using VT ideas, princibles, or mechanics, its grappling. Robert has stated that the guilloten is a VT technique that is out of the last section of biu jee (I call it "the getting out of the cake move"). I would contend that this is not VT but a grappling submission taught by someone else to you or your students.

This is a limited way to think. You have you main art for each main area in MMA.

Stand up - we have CSL Wing Chun.

We also have wrestling for takedowns.

On the ground we have Wrestling, Catch and BJJ plus you can had other grappling arts if you wish

Now on the ground if I grab an arm and pull it across is in lap sao or an arm drag?

Now if in the clinch I have an under hook and I lift it high is ian high underhook or is it tan sao to Tok sao?

Now if I strike on the ground am I using wing chun on my knees?


Now if I cross face in the clinch is it wrestling or a lan sao?

Now if its on the ground do I under side cross side and flex my elbow to pin - BJJ OR wrestling or is if a bong sao.

Well the way WE (CSL) look at it all is this. Principles firsts - the terms are related to the art and the person you are talking too. Ie if I am teaching wrestling its an underhook, if I teaching wing chun its tan to tok. These are generic principles of body movement. After that you have concepts, which are ideas of what you may like or could do depending on your skills and understanding, bodytype and so on.

My BJJ teacher shows me BJJ applications which I have often seen in catch before, but its still BJJ as we are still training in that art at that time. Its just words to communicate, dont hold on to them so hard as its not the art.

The art is 'body structure' - 'base' - timing, position, weight, balance etc etc

Alan

[chusauli]

Its all mechanics. The body only moves in so many ways, you have to look at the context in which you use things. Application is the key. Many times if you learn multiple martial arts, you see that your relearning the same moves over and over again, but used in a different context.

How wrong is that? How correct is that?

Narrow mindedness can't accept things like that.

[Wayfaring]

Well the way WE (CSL) look at it all is this. Principles firsts - the terms are related to the art and the person you are talking too. Ie if I am teaching wrestling its an underhook, if I teaching wing chun its tan to tok. These are generic principles of body movement. After that you have concepts, which are ideas of what you may like or could do depending on your skills and understanding, bodytype and so on.

My BJJ teacher shows me BJJ applications which I have often seen in catch before, but its still BJJ as we are still training in that art at that time. Its just words to communicate, dont hold on to them so hard as its not the art.

I actually think this is a pretty good approach. There are many 'similar' movements between WCK, wrestling, ground, etc. However, each of those areas also has completely different fundamentals that need to be learned to take advantage of any similarities.

I like the idea of training what your learning within THAT context directly. Then later on you can translate things to put together the similarities.

Nice post.

[Alan Orr]

I actually think this is a pretty good approach. There are many 'similar' movements between WCK, wrestling, ground, etc. However, each of those areas also has completely different fundamentals that need to be learned to take advantage of any similarities.

I like the idea of training what your learning within THAT context directly. Then later on you can translate things to put together the similarities.

Nice post.

All cool, thanks.

[bennyvt]

I think thats a very simple way of looking at things. While a crane and stalk look similar they are not the same bird. Just like Roberts "any fighting is VT" to justify why your guys were winning with moves not learnt by him.
It may be an arm drag, it may be an lap sao it depends how you do it but it would have to be added to a grappling gaurd. I would class catch as more of a grand father of bjj then something different, they are all grappling so moves are interchangable. I understand the main art of the main areas but what I am asking is do you think that at times you look or search for a move to change the area, ie someone takes you down and instead of using your stepping and VT moves you go for the underhooks. As I said I agree with using these tools but they are not VT. To call them VT is in my opinion is more of a way of claiming someone elses style as your own. Is a head lock a lan sao? NO. Just because it has the same sort of shape doesn't make it something its not. The underhook to tan sao to tok sao move, seriuosly. In VT you would ask, why is you arm down low, why did you extend so far, why didn't you keep you spacing and a whole lot more. having to change the style based on your opponent is acceptable, ie Vt then graplling when you hit the ground (not my idea just an easier example) as opposed to searching for one style when you should be doing the other. This is the line I am asking about. This is not a go at you. I also find it hard when the smaller changes happen deciding, mostly I use the VT ideas and concepts (main one being don't get in the clinch) as this is my main training, I still tend to miss a bit in the middle. So some times I can still be trying to get back to VT spacing when I should have underhooked, sprawled etc.
I think I use my VT on the ground for blocking, controling, position, feel etc. This is added to my grappling. My grappling is not VT. Learning the same move from a different style is comon, claiming a head high kick is VT as it sort of looks like the side kick is not right.
Oh Robert why don't you just keep your stupid insults to yourself. atleast your student can talk without having to insult people. I didn't insult anyone asking the question but you just couldn't help yourself. This is my problem with Robert, claiming every move of MA as his own and he just can't help but insult people. I guess he thinks if the great Robert Chu makes fun of you we will al bow our head and run away. I have meet real masters, not only could they kill you they are nice guys. I have found except for the ones that just like to hurt people, most are secure with their own skills so they don't have to belittle others. They do, not say. The whole "I know something you all don't know" is the comon idea. When finally pressed about his "Structure" etc he gave us a clue. Push your waist forward. Now although I have now found out that people don't actually do this, alot of people do. I have been to hong kong, china and other places and while some don't do this, heaps do. To make out you have something that we don't know, and just happen to be selling it on DVD, I feel is false advertising.
As I have said before good luck to your students and I hope they give them hell, this is not about being able to fight. Its more claiming it is VT when you are doing other styles is again false.

[Ultimatewingchun]

***WOW !!!

That was a very perceptive post, bennyvt.

You clearly understand when and where a wing chun fighter has to put on a wrestling/grappling hat.

You may still be working on the details of perfecting it - as you yourself said - but you definitely know a good amount of correct fighting strategy and technique....and if you just keep on drilling and testing it - you, benny, will definitely get good at it.

And as for your analysis of Robert Chu and what his CSL is really all about: bingo!

Give this man a cigar.
....................................

"This is my problem with Robert, claiming every move of MA as his own and he just can't help but insult people. I guess he thinks if the great Robert Chu makes fun of you we will all bow our head and run away. I have meet real masters, not only could they kill you they are nice guys. I have found except for the ones that just like to hurt people, most are secure with their own skills so they don't have to belittle others. They do, not say. The whole "I know something you all don't know" is the common idea. When finally pressed about his "Structure" etc he gave us a clue. Push your waist forward. Now although I have now found out that people don't actually do this, alot of people do. I have been to hong kong, china and other places and while some don't do this, heaps do. To make out you have something that we don't know, and just happen to be selling it on DVD, I feel is false advertising." (bennyvt)
............................................

***THIS.

[anerlich]

I agree with most of what's said here about learning and incorporating different arts.

After 12 years of WC I took up BJJ. As a white belt, I looked for ways to see BJJ through WC coloured glasses, and thought this might help me improve faster.

After a year or two, I discovered that this didn't really work for me.

As a purple belt, I now train BJJ as if it were BJJ, using the language and practices of BJJ. I train separate arts at different times and believe strongly in teaching this way as well. To teach WC in a BJJ context or vice versa is IMO a recipe for confusion and mediocrity.

MMA is only a combination of multiple arts at low levels. At higher levels, IMO, it becomes something else again to either pure striking (WC, boxing, MT, etc.) or pure grappling. You have iMO to train MMA as a separate discipline as well as training each of its components.

[anerlich]

The whole "I know something you all don't know" is the comon idea.

Yeah, that's a pi$$er. That and "most WC people don't understand this" from a poster are my two biggest annoyances.

[Alan Orr]

I think thats a very simple way of looking at things. While a crane and stalk look similar they are not the same bird. Just like Roberts "any fighting is VT" to justify why your guys were winning with moves not learnt by him.
It may be an arm drag, it may be an lap sao it depends how you do it but it would have to be added to a grappling gaurd. I would class catch as more of a grand father of bjj then something different, they are all grappling so moves are interchangable. I understand the main art of the main areas but what I am asking is do you think that at times you look or search for a move to change the area, ie someone takes you down and instead of using your stepping and VT moves you go for the underhooks. As I said I agree with using these tools but they are not VT. To call them VT is in my opinion is more of a way of claiming someone elses style as your own. Is a head lock a lan sao? NO. Just because it has the same sort of shape doesn't make it something its not. The underhook to tan sao to tok sao move, seriuosly. In VT you would ask, why is you arm down low, why did you extend so far, why didn't you keep you spacing and a whole lot more. having to change the style based on your opponent is acceptable, ie Vt then graplling when you hit the ground (not my idea just an easier example) as opposed to searching for one style when you should be doing the other. This is the line I am asking about. This is not a go at you. I also find it hard when the smaller changes happen deciding, mostly I use the VT ideas and concepts (main one being don't get in the clinch) as this is my main training, I still tend to miss a bit in the middle. So some times I can still be trying to get back to VT spacing when I should have underhooked, sprawled etc.
I think I use my VT on the ground for blocking, controling, position, feel etc. This is added to my grappling. My grappling is not VT. Learning the same move from a different style is comon, claiming a head high kick is VT as it sort of looks like the side kick is not right.
Oh Robert why don't you just keep your stupid insults to yourself. atleast your student can talk without having to insult people. I didn't insult anyone asking the question but you just couldn't help yourself. This is my problem with Robert, claiming every move of MA as his own and he just can't help but insult people. I guess he thinks if the great Robert Chu makes fun of you we will al bow our head and run away. I have meet real masters, not only could they kill you they are nice guys. I have found except for the ones that just like to hurt people, most are secure with their own skills so they don't have to belittle others. They do, not say. The whole "I know something you all don't know" is the comon idea. When finally pressed about his "Structure" etc he gave us a clue. Push your waist forward. Now although I have now found out that people don't actually do this, alot of people do. I have been to hong kong, china and other places and while some don't do this, heaps do. To make out you have something that we don't know, and just happen to be selling it on DVD, I feel is false advertising.
As I have said before good luck to your students and I hope they give them hell, this is not about being able to fight. Its more claiming it is VT when you are doing other styles is again false.

Not sure whatt point you are making. Our Wing Chun has chin na skills and applications in the clinch. Head control is one of them.

My teacher is right froom what I have seen of wing chun. After over 20 years I still see well known instructors teaching rubbish. The idea that it you hold you tan like this then they can't do that idea is limited.

The first form level of wing chun to learn about your own movement and power development. Correct lines of attack and positioning. The second level you learn to use these ideas. Its not fixed. You use the prinicple of the movement.

Going back to 'structure' as I keep sayying its not a simple answer of just
one thing. I have only seen maybe one or two guys with even half of the understanding my teacher has. So people may think they know but they do not. Thats jusst my opinion of course.

Victors chi sao clips to ME look like someone without any understanding, so I find it hard to listen to his rants.


Best

Alan

[Alan Orr]

Yeah, that's a pi$$er. That and "most WC people don't understand this" from a poster are my two biggest annoyances.

Sorry bro, you may understand more than others. But looking at the big picture it seems to be true. Alll you need to do is read the questions people put on the forum.

I also think don't they have a teacher? WHy are they needed to ask.

best

Alan

[bennyvt]

Using the princibles and flat out breaking the rules of VT are different things.
Its like when the karate guys "looked" for the hidden moves in kata and just added a bunch of stuff that they had seen that looked the same.
My point is a guilloten or a headlock is not VT and calling it is just a way of justifing why you use other styles. As I have said I don't have a problem with people fighting anyway. Just don't call a head high kick a VT move. Which by the way is in the opening credits of your NHB wing chun DVD's